DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26 – 31, 36 – 40, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanquart (US 2014/0163319).
As per claim 26, a system comprising:
an emitter (Figure 1 element 100) that pulses a plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitter comprises a plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation comprising a multispectral source of electromagnetic radiation and a visible source of electromagnetic radiation (¶ 45);
an image sensor (Figure 1 element 120) comprising a pixel array that senses reflected electromagnetic radiation and outputs a plurality of exposure frames (¶ 45); and
a controller in electrical communication with the image sensor and the emitter, wherein the controller synchronizes operations of the image sensor and the emitter (¶ 45 - 47);
wherein the controller is configured to operate the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation of the emitter according to a pulse cycle pattern (¶ 45 - 47);
wherein the controller is configured to instruct the emitter to pulse during a blanking period of the image sensor (¶ 89);
wherein the blanking period is variable depending on a given wavelength emitted during the pulse cycle pattern (¶ 89).
As per claim 27, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the pulse cycle pattern comprises two or more pulses of electromagnetic radiation from one or more of the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein an order of the pulse cycle pattern and/or a frequency of the two or more pulses of electromagnetic radiation are adjustable by a user (¶ 89 and 102).
As per claim 28, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the pulse cycle pattern is adjustable according to a pixel value of the pixel array of the image sensor, such that one or more sources of the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation are adjusted if the pixel value does not meet a threshold pixel value (¶ 76 - 85).
As per claim 29, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the image sensor is a plurality of image sensors and wherein the pixel arrays of each of the plurality of image sensors are synchronized such that the blanking periods of each image sensor are synchronized (¶ 45).
As per claim 30, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of different blanking periods across repeating patterns of a variable number of frames, wherein the different blanking periods are variable in length (¶ 89).
As per claim 31, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the wherein the blanking period is further variable depending on one or more of:
a sensitivity of the image sensor to the given wavelength, a power output capacity of the emitter, or a carrying capacity of a waveguide in communication with the emitter to transmit light from the emitter to a distal tip of an endoscope (¶ 89).
As per claim 36, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the emitter emits a sequence of pulses of electromagnetic radiation repeatedly sufficient for generating a video stream comprising a plurality of image frames, wherein each image frame in the video stream comprises data from two or more of the plurality of exposure frames, and wherein each of the plurality of exposure frames corresponds with a single-color wavelength of electromagnetic radiation pulsed by the emitter (¶ 76 - 85).
As per claim 37, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 36, wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises a color exposure frame output by the image sensor during a color readout period, wherein the color readout period occurs immediately subsequent to a color blanking period wherein the emitter pulsing a white light emission by the visible source of electromagnetic radiation (¶ 65).
As per claim 38, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the controller instructs the emitter to pulse the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation during a blanking period of a sensor cycle of the image sensor, and wherein the controller adjusts one or more of an intensity or duration of any of the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation for illuminating a light deficient environment visualized by the image sensor (¶ 65 - 67).
As per claim 39, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 38, wherein the instructions further comprise determining a color-specific sensitivity of the pixel array to one or more of a red wavelength, a green wavelength, a blue wavelength, or one or more multispectral wavebands pulsed by the multispectral source, and wherein the instructions are such that adjusting the one or more of the intensity or the duration of the emission by the emitter is further determined based on a wavelength of the emission and the color-specific sensitivity of the pixel array (¶ 76 - 85).
As per claim 40, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the controller comprises one or more processors for executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the instructions comprising: determining a histogram for a full cycle of electromagnetic spectrum partitions, wherein the full cycle comprises one or more of a red wavelength, a green wavelength, a blue wavelength, and one or more multispectral wavebands pulsed by the plurality of multispectral sources; comparing the histogram to expected values for an expected histogram; and adjusting an image signal processing pipeline based on the comparison of the histogram to the expected values (¶ 93 and 103).
As per claim 45, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the image sensor comprises two or more image sensors each comprising an independent pixel array; wherein the two or more image sensors simultaneously output imaging information; and wherein the imaging information simultaneously output by the two or more image sensors is utilized to generate a three-dimensional rendering of a scene (¶ 165).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Oshima et al (US 2019/0297243, hereafter Oshima).
As per claim 41, Blanquart discloses the system of claim 26.
However, Blanquart does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of electromagnetic sources further comprises a fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation, wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises a fluorescent exposure frame generated by the image sensor in response to a pulse by the fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation is configured to pulse electromagnetic radiation within a wavelength range of 795 ± 20 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Oshima teaches wherein the plurality of electromagnetic sources further comprises a fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation, wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises a fluorescent exposure frame generated by the image sensor in response to a pulse by the fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the fluorescent source of electromagnetic radiation is configured to pulse electromagnetic radiation within a wavelength range of 795 ± 20 nm (¶ 680).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Blanquart in view of Oshima. The advantage is improving the image processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 32 - 35 and 42 - 44 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights